On Fri, Jan 30, 2009 at 12:49 PM, Harry Putnam <[email protected]> wrote: > I didn't want to derail the existing thread discussing ext4 with this > angle ... I'm guessing there may be comments that will not be helpful > to that OP. > > I'm wondering what people running ext4 are seeing in practice that > makes it better than ext3 or reiserfs? Is it safer journalling? Faster > read/write? ... > > I've thought about switching over too... especially every time I > `rm -rf' something big and it seems to take way longer than I'd like. > > (I run all reiserfs except ext2 for /boot)
On my desktop, I'm using ext3 via ext4's driver (on-disk format is still ext3). There are theoretical improvements but I haven't noticed anything honestly. On my laptop I converted to actual ext4 format and don't notice anything different... I did not do any tests or take any measurements, but there was no "wow" factor or anything. It just works normally. Both of these are single-user home computers. Maybe someone in a high-load environment has better ideas about it.
